Category Archives: democracy and good government

Searching for Honourable Governance

conservative party, democracy and good government, green party, toronto

Yes, I know dear reader, I’ve been neglecting you. My apologies. Many thoughts running around in my head; very little time to convert them into words. You’ll be glad to know, however, that I’ve had a busy and productive week. We had our first Toronto Centre campaign team meeting, and we’ve got a great group of people who are excited and ready to go, whenever the election comes. I’ve also been active at the national level as our shadow cabinet continues to gear up for a solid national campaign.

Internationally, this week a bunch of Toronto Greens met with Roberta Moreno, who works for one of thirteen elected Green Party of Brazil representatives (Partido Verde). We had several great conversations over two days, and discussed ways in which we can work together on global issues.

That being said, I still believe you deserve something of substance for waiting so patiently for a new post. For that, I leave you in the capable hands of Lawrence Martin, who will walk you through an efficient summary of this government’s hypocrisies and negativity (taken from yesterday’s globe column), and conclude with what I think is good advice. Enjoy!

The environment? [Stephen Harper] was a right-wing agnostic. Now, presto! He’s a leaf-licking true believer. Health care? He was once in with the privatization crowd. Now he is statist Stephen.

Gay rights? He used to hang out in social conservative precincts. Now, so long dinosaurs; he’s the moderate man. Quebec? He believed in no special status for the province. Presto, its people are suddenly a nation.

Iraq? He supported President George W. Bush’s war. Now, he wouldn’t touch it with a barge poll…

…The Liberals lost the last election because of regime fatigue and ugly ethics. Although winning fans with his clarity and resolve, Mr. Harper has lowered himself in the eyes of many by running a one-man uptight government steeped in the politics of negativity.

It was Margot Asquith who said of Lloyd George, “He could not see a belt without hitting below it.”

Mr. Harper and his ministers are incapable of answering a question in the House without resorting to the intellectually vacuous tactic of referencing the previous government’s record and claiming it was worse. Every government does this to a certain extent. None as much as this one…

…Canadians, having seen so much of the Grits, are pretty well fed up with the old-style political skulduggery and lack of civility. They’re looking for more honourable governance, and if the Conservatives want to get out of the big stall, they would be wise to demonstrate they are capable of it.

Open Up

democracy and good government, green party, social justice, the internets

When Microsoft released Vista (the latest version of Windows) this week, the general reaction from a usability standpoint was underwhelming. It’s been five years since Windows XP, so computer users were expecting a lot. Instead, most of the new features seem to focus on ensuring that it’s a little bit harder to steal Hollywood movies or Vista itself, causing thieves and non-thieves to respond with “damnit!” and “who cares?,” respectively.

Then, the more substantive criticisms emerged. First, from Canadian internet law expert Michael Geist, who points out that Vista’s fine print gives it the right to delete certain programs without the user’s knowledge, and provides that “this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.”

Also, Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs when played on most computer monitors. In other words, you’ll pay more for less. And don’t bother trying to fix that, because the terms and conditions state that “you may not work around any technical limitations in the software.”

Then, the UK Green Party pointed out that Vista is also bad for the environment because, even though it doesn’t have many new features, it “requires more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, passing the cost on to consumers and the environment…Future archaeologists will be able to identify a ‘Vista Upgrade Layer’ when they go through our landfill sites.”

I didn’t think that was worth mentioning until I saw Microsoft’s ultra-lame response, which basically just said, “environmental issues are important to us.” Um, good to hear. What are you doing about it?

Taken together with Geist’s concerns about user rights, and the fact that Vista isn’t that great of an upgrade anyway, the case against using Microsoft’s new OS is strong. In addition, the critical importance that computers have to our lives and economy makes this a political issue.

Fortunately, there’s a ready alternative. Open source software is the democratic way of designing computer programs. This website, for example, runs on a free, open source programming language called PHP, instead of Microsoft’s almost identical (and much more expensive than free) ASP. There are also open source alternatives to Windows, Microsoft Office, and almost any other application you’d use on a day-to-day basis.

The Green Party of Canada has called for “federal departments and agencies to transition to open source or free software for general applications and provide free technical support to Canadian companies who use this software.” It’s one of our wackier ideas, but I like it. And, the more bloated and intrusive closed source products like Microsoft’s get, the less wacky it will seem.

Yay for Democracy Part II

democracy and good government, green party, ontario referendum on mmp

Below, for your reading pleasure, is the statement I submitted today to the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform on behalf of the Green Party of Canada. If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, the Citizens’ Assembly is a group of randomly selected Ontario voters who are currently deciding whether or not to change our voting system, and if so, what we should change it to. Ontarians will then get a chance to vote on their proposal at the same time as the next provincial election, October 4th 2007. For more information on what they’re up to, or about the “principals” I talk about below, their website is a good place to start.

Official Written Submission by the Green Party of Canada to the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

In writing this statement to the Citizens’ Assembly, we are struck with a dilemma. Fundamentally, the Green Party of Canada believes that reforms to our democratic and electoral systems must, by definition, be made by citizens, not just politicians. Therefore, we must begin by endorsing the process you are following, and acknowledging that our views are no more valuable than those of any other group of people.

That being said, we, as a party, have a membership of 10,000 Canadians, a large number of whom are from Ontario. In the last federal election we received the support of 665,940 Canadians, and our two highest ridings (as measured by percentage and total votes) were both in Ontario. Our lack of representation in parliament, as you know, is often used as a textbook example of what is wrong with our current electoral system. These facts provide us with a unique perspective, as well as with a significant amount of credibility on the subject.

We also feel it’s important for us to share our opinions with you, a provincial group, even though we are a national party. That’s because the decision you make will almost certainly have national implications. You therefore have a unique opportunity to improve democracy not only in Ontario, but in Canada.

What We Value

The Green Party understands that no electoral system is perfect. Therefore, while none of the principals you’ve listed should be sneezed at, some must be prioritized above others. Of the nine, Voter Choice and Fairness of Representation stand out, as they are fundamental to the health of our democracy. If voters do not feel like they have a political choice that reflects their views, or if our government does not represent its population, we may want to question whether the transliteration of democracy — rule by the people — truly applies. Accountability and Strong Voter Participation are also principals that we value highly.

Stable and Effective Government and Effective Parliament are also laudable goals, though the use of the word “effective” in both makes these principals more likely to be influenced by the eye of the beholder. Your documentation suggests that government and parliament are more stable and effective when comprised of majority governments with one, strong party in opposition. We would suggest you consider the possibility that this definition contains a bias towards the current system that is not necessarily founded in fact. Instead, we would submit that the argument that majority governments can more easily implement their agenda means they are also less likely to reflect the values and priorities of Ontarians, or to listen to the other duly elected voices in the legislature. If the goal is democracy as defined, surely this must make those governments and parliaments less effective, not more.

It may seem odd that, up until now, we have not mentioned Legitimacy. That’s because in a democracy, legitimacy is the result of the successful application of the first four principals we mentioned. The electoral system will have the “confidence” and “reflect the values” of Ontarians when it elects governments that represent them.

Finally, one comment about your additional principal, Simplicity and Practicality. Again, we agree that this must be a key consideration when designing a new system, if indeed that is what you choose to do. However, please also strongly consider the intelligence of voters. Political issues themselves are often not simple. If we don’t believe voters are able to understand a ranked ballot or a regional magnitude, for example, what makes us think they’re qualified to make decisions regarding the governance of the province? The Green Party believes and trusts in the ability of voters to make the right choices when they have the right information, and when the electoral system accurately communicates their choices.

The Current System

The current electoral system in Ontario (and the rest of Canada) does not provide for adequate voter choice or fairness of representation, and therefore lacks legitimacy and effectiveness. The many examples of serious anomalies are no doubt very familiar to you by now, and therefore don’t need to be repeated. Suffice it to say that the current system is not doing a good job of fairly reflecting the nuanced political views of all Ontarians, and is doing an even worse job of electing proportional numbers of various groups, including women and minorities. While there are admittedly many factors influencing these electoral outcomes, our electoral system itself is a key one.

Another key indicator of the current system’s inadequacy is the number of voters who feel like they can’t vote for who they think is the best choice, for fear of unintended consequences. Whether you’re a Tory in Toronto or a Green…well, anywhere…you could be forgiven for thinking that your vote doesn’t count. For a democracy, that’s unacceptable.

The Need for Change

Therefore, yes, the Green Party believes there is a need for change. A new electoral system must give a voice to every Ontarian, ensure that all votes are counted equally, and help to create a legislature that reflects the demographic and political mix of its population. Some will argue that, since no system is perfect, we’ll just be trading one set of problems for another. They may be right, but the problems we inherit are almost certain to be of less consequence than those we do away with.

Obviously, it would be possible to design a worse electoral system than the one we have, but we find it unlikely that a group of citizens who have spent so much time studying the issue will be capable of doing so. The one caution we will make is that the new system should not give new expanded powers to party leaders, particularly with regards to the formation of party lists in a list or MMP system. The centralization of power with party leaders does not serve democracy, and leads to reduced transparency, accountability, and voter choice. Instead, there may be creative ways of generating the list, including the so-called “best loser” system, where the list is comprised of all the candidates from a party who failed to win seats, in descending order of the number of votes they received.

While many of our members and the authors of this document have their own preferences for different voting systems, we will not include them here, as the party’s position is that that decision should rest with you. Additionally, some of us have made our preferences known though individual presentations and written submissions.

Thank you for taking the time to review our submission, and for all of the hard work and service you’ve given and will continue to give as members of the assembly. We look forward to reading your report.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Green Party of Canada by Chris Tindal, Democratic Reform Advocate.

Yay for Democracy Part I

conservative party, democracy and good government, green party, liberal party, ndp, polls

Two days ago I asked you to be skeptical of any political party that has a death-bed conversion to the world of environmental sanity. Yesterday, Decima released a poll that proves once again that every single Canadian not only reads my blog, but also does everything I say.

The poll’s most encouraging finding? You’re not buying it.

A new poll suggests Canadians view all the major federal political parties with a lot of skepticism when it comes to environmental policy.The survey by Decima Research, provided to The Canadian Press, found that respondents by a four-to-one margin see recent Conservative green announcements as being driven by public opinion, not genuine commitment.

Oh, and guess what else:

When Decima asked how respondents would vote if the environment was the only issue in the next election, the Green Party led with 24 per cent support. The Conservatives and Liberals were essentially tied, 17-16, while the NDP attracted just 10 per cent support and the Bloc Quebecois only four per cent.

I don’t expect the environment to be the only issue in the next election, but it’s a pretty darned important one. (As in, “if you don’t have a planet, then, well….”) Onward and upward.